![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bartle on the Why? behind game design
Nov. 2nd, 2010 11:58 pmDr. Richard Bartle is about as old-school as computer game designers come. He was a co-creator of a groundbreaking multiplayer online RPG back in 1978. At a recent Game Developers Conference, Bartle gave a presentation on that game, his design role, and game design in general. You can find a rough transcript of his talk here, and here is the presentation itself.
One topic Bartle touches on, not once but twice, is the issue of why one should go into game design in the first place. In his opinion, it's just as nonsensical to want to create games because you enjoy playing them as it is to want to become a brewer because you like beer.
"If you want to do it for making money, why aren't you working at a bank? ... If you're doing it because you like playing the games, that gets back to the brewing argument. If you want to do it because you want to bring joy and help the world, work on a charity."
Bartle is a huge proponent of knowing why you're doing something, and furthermore knowing why you're doing it the way you are. To him, there's only one good "why" to be a game designer, and that's to say something.
Bartle and his partner Roy Trubshaw didn't create their game to make money or provide entertainment. They created an escapist fantasy world where upward mobility existed, everyone started at the bottom, and anyone could make it to the top if they had the right objectively-measurable skills, and they did this because they were displeased that their country exhibited none of these properties.
I can't get completely behind the good Doctor's idealism, though. His claim that there's no logical link between enjoying a good and wanting to know more about how it's made, perhaps investigate manufacturing it oneself -- that doesn't ring true. How likely is a person who dislikes beer to want to brew it? How likely is a beer-disliking brewer to be good at brewing?
One topic Bartle touches on, not once but twice, is the issue of why one should go into game design in the first place. In his opinion, it's just as nonsensical to want to create games because you enjoy playing them as it is to want to become a brewer because you like beer.
"If you want to do it for making money, why aren't you working at a bank? ... If you're doing it because you like playing the games, that gets back to the brewing argument. If you want to do it because you want to bring joy and help the world, work on a charity."
Bartle is a huge proponent of knowing why you're doing something, and furthermore knowing why you're doing it the way you are. To him, there's only one good "why" to be a game designer, and that's to say something.
Bartle and his partner Roy Trubshaw didn't create their game to make money or provide entertainment. They created an escapist fantasy world where upward mobility existed, everyone started at the bottom, and anyone could make it to the top if they had the right objectively-measurable skills, and they did this because they were displeased that their country exhibited none of these properties.
I can't get completely behind the good Doctor's idealism, though. His claim that there's no logical link between enjoying a good and wanting to know more about how it's made, perhaps investigate manufacturing it oneself -- that doesn't ring true. How likely is a person who dislikes beer to want to brew it? How likely is a beer-disliking brewer to be good at brewing?
